Information for "The Public Guardian v RI (2022) EWCOP 22"
Basic information
Display title | The Public Guardian v RI [2022] EWCOP 22 |
Default sort key | The Public Guardian v RI (2022) EWCOP 22 |
Page length (in bytes) | 1,123 |
Page ID | 14474 |
Page content language | en - English |
Page content model | wikitext |
Indexing by robots | Allowed |
Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
Counted as a content page | Yes |
Page image | ![]() |
Page protection
Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of page creation | 22:03, 25 July 2022 |
Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of latest edit | 22:03, 25 July 2022 |
Total number of edits | 1 |
Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description )This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "The sole question which this judgment addresses is whether the donor under a Lasting Power of Attorney for Property and Financial Affairs (LPA) executed in 2009 had capacity to execute it. ... I proceed on the basis that the relevant information in relation to the execution of an LPA is: (a) The effect of the LPA. (b) Who the attorneys are. (c) The scope of the attorneys' powers and that the MCA 2005 restricts the exercise of their powers. (d) When the attorneys can exercise those powers, including the need for the LPA to be executed before it is effective. (e) The scope of the assets the attorneys can deal with under the LPA. (f) The power of the donor to revoke the LPA when he has capacity to do so. (g) The pros and cons of executing the particular LPA and of not doing so." |